The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: Prior to the debates yesterday on the motion to amend Standing Orders and on the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I received two valid petitions of concern signed by 30 Members in respect of the motion and the vote. Therefore in accordance with Standing Order 27 no vote could be held until at least one day had passed. The Business Committee considered the matter yesterday during the suspension for lunch and unanimously agreed that the vote be placed on the Order Paper for today, and that was distributed. I remind Members that today’s business is purely the conduct of the votes; it is not to provide further opportunity for debate.
A simple majority will decide the vote on the amendment, which is on the Marshalled List. The vote on the motion and the vote on the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be decided on a cross- community basis. The second of those votes requires parallel consent.
I have received a further petition of concern in respect of the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The petition of concern was received within the required time, which is at least one hour before the vote. I have had to decide whether I should accept the petition of concern, insofar as it will delay the vote for a further day.
According to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, under section 42(1) and (2), petitions of concern do not require a particular delay. The Act requires that a cross- community vote be taken. That is already the case in respect of the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Standing Order 27(1) requires that
"No vote may be held on a matter which is the subject of a petition of concern until at least one day after the Petition of Concern has been presented."
I must judge whether it is reasonable to accept repeated petitions of concern on the same issue, meaning that a delay of one day could occur potentially on a repeated basis.
The purpose of a petition of concern is twofold. First, in accordance with the Act, its purpose is to ensure that the vote is decided on a cross-community basis. This vote will be on a cross-community, parallel consent basis. Secondly, the purpose of a one-day delay, provided for by Standing Order 27(1), is to permit the Assembly to consider the matter further. Therefore, the petition of concern ensures that both cross-community support and full consideration have been given.
Is it reasonable to accept repeated petitions of concern in respect of a specific question? The Speaker has a responsibility and a duty to give rulings on matters of procedure and to ensure that the business of the House is conducted properly. Having considered the question, I rule that more than one petition of concern on any matter, in order to delay matters for more than one day, is not permissible. I will not accept that.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a point of order yesterday, and I quote from the Official Report:
"Can you draw our attention to the Standing Order that allows someone to make personal remarks after the winding-up speech on an amendment?" — [Official Report, Bound Volume 12, p 468].
To which you responded, Mr Speaker,
"Perhaps the Member can draw my attention to the Standing Order that forbids it?" — [Official Report, Bound Volume 12, p 468].
Regarding the matter that you are now considering, perhaps you can draw our attention to the Standing Order that forbids a second petition of concern?

Mr Speaker: I draw the attention of the Member to Standing Order 1(2):
"The Speaker’s ruling shall be final on all questions of procedure and order."
I have not suggested that there is a Standing Order that forbids it but that it is for the Speaker to rule on the question. There can be little reasonable denial of that. I have made my ruling.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that you are resting your decision on the desires of certain people. We are held up today because of a petition of concern. That petition of concern was submitted not for the purpose of concern, but to get the amendment dealt with so that there could be a change of designation. Then there would be no concern. I do not think, therefore, that you can judge the morality or the objective of the petition of concern.
You are entitled to deal with a petition of concern — I do not deny that — but the reason for tabling the petition of concern should not sway your decision. The reference in Standing Orders to petitions of concern is clear; it does not analyse it; it does not parse it; it does not include any other consideration but stands naked on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: I trust that I have not expressed a view on the morality of the issue. I must address the question because this is the first time that petitions of concern about the same matter have been tabled seriatim. If I were to accept one further petition of concern, that would suggest that there was no reason why I might not accept it day after day. That would not be a proper way of proceeding. My ruling is not a judgement on the motivation behind either the first petition of concern or the second; it is on the question of whether repeated petitions of concern, submitted under the Standing Orders — not the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — should create a repeated delay of a day. That is not proper in this or any other circumstance.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Quite properly, you said that, in the absence of an Upper House, a petition of concern allowed Members to consider fully the implications of a motion. The implications of this motion are fundamentally important. Yesterday, a decision was taken about redesignation that may have altered the views of some Members, particularly those from the UUP. The motion can be passed only if UUP Members are determined to accept as Unionists, for the purposes of a vote, the redesignated Alliance Party Members.

Mr Speaker: The Member should come to his point of order. This is not an opportunity for further speeches and debate.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am well aware of the situation. There may be some UUP Members with a scintilla of conscience who may wish to consider at length the implications of their actions. It would be valid — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr Robert McCartney: It would be valid to allow at least two petitions of concern — not a whole line — relating to a matter of such importance.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will deal with the points of order as they arise.
Mr McCartney has raised what is, in a sense, a political question. I have answered the simple question whether repeated petitions of concern relating to a particular issue — it can be any issue, but it must be the same one for all the petitions — should be accepted. The Member also asked whether the fundamental political nature of the matter meant that repeated questions should be put. I referred to the situation in a Parliament with two Chambers, and, of course, there have been occasions when there has been a game of ping-pong between the two Chambers in another place. However, that has not happened simply because of the fundamental nature of the legislation at hand.
The Member has asked me to judge whether Members from a particular political party have had this matter sprung on them in such a way that they have been unable to give it due consideration.
It would be improper for me to make a judgement on that issue. However, on the procedural question of whether or not it should be permissible to have repeated petitions of concern on any specific issue, the judgement that I make is that it is not a proper use of Standing Order 27(1).

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of your ruling, we appear to be approaching the point where it will be impossible to use the procedures of the House, or even the courts, to demonstrate what is quite clear. Mr Trimble has said that if he is elected under this process, it will lack credibility. Therefore, even if the House appoints Mr Trimble, it will lack credibility.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is mistaken. I see no reason why he should not consult with legal advisers about the question of the courts if he wishes. I made it clear yesterday that the Assembly is set up under statute; it is subject to the law, and I would not dream of advising the Assembly to act ultra vires. However, that is a matter outside of the Chamber.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept the force of your argument that it would be wrong to use the process of a petition of concern to allow the same people to delay a matter by repeatedly putting in petitions of concern. However, the people who have signed this petition of concern have not submitted any previous petition of concern on the matter. Several issues have arisen in the last 24 hours, which have given rise to concern among my Colleagues who signed the petition of concern. They want a further 24 hours in which to consider those matters.

Mr Speaker: I accept that the Member would wish to press the case. I accept that he makes an argument, which is not irrational. However, I must judge what is proper procedure. Let us be clear; Members must still decide how they will vote. As for the suggestion that they may require more time, there was no particular requirement that the sitting be held today. Standing Order 27(1) states:
"at least one day".
If the Business Committee had judged this matter to be of such a fundamental nature that it required consideration over two days, three days, or a week, it would have been at liberty to make such a decision yesterday. To my knowledge, that suggestion was never raised, and the Business Committee agreed to hold the sitting today. That is not the question. The question is one of procedure, which has not arisen before, and on which I believe I must rule. Is a petition of concern on the same issue, which is brought forward subsequently, a facility for delaying proceedings under Standing Order 27(1)? I accept that the Member has made a particular argument, but I have had to make a ruling, and I am persuaded that it is correct. I make it clear that the ruling does not apply solely in these circumstances; it sets a precedent.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be sufficient reason for you to consider this petition of concern if there had been an attack on a Member’s property, and that a Member, who is unable to come here today, had been threatened?

Mr Speaker: To raise questions of that kind, given the circumstances that exist here in respect of all types of votes, would not be a wise course to follow.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Why? Do you want to hide it?

Mr Patrick Roche: Why not?

Mr Speaker: Order.
Although some Members are conducting a thoughtful and serious discussion on the merits of the procedure, it is inappropriate for other Members to make flippant remarks from a sedentary position.

Petition of Concern: Amendment to Standing Orders

Motion proposed [5 November]:
From 5 November 2001, until the commencement of a review under paragraph 36 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, Standing Order 3(8) has effect as if it read:
"A Member may change his/her designation of identity. Any such change takes effect immediately after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker. Any subsequent change shall take effect seven days after the day of such notification."
[Mr J Wilson] [Mr E McGrady]
Amendment proposed [5 November]:
Delete all after "Speaker" in line 6 and add:
"and the change is endorsed by a majority of those already registered to this designation."
[Mr P Robinson]

Mr Speaker: We should proceed with the business in hand, which is to vote on three issues. First, the vote on the amendment to the motion, which I remind the House — [Interruption].

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a most serious matter that a Member, who was coming to the House, has been attacked. Her property was attacked in such a way that she cannot come here in time for the sitting and a wreath was sent to her home.
That is a very serious thing. I would say, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am in no way suggesting that the matter is not serious. I am very much aware that such questions have been around, and I have been conscious of them over the last day. However, my point is that if the House were to allow itself to have its procedures interfered with in that way, it would be a very serious precedent indeed. It would be quite inappropriate — [Interruption].
Order. We must be duly and gravely concerned as we deal with such questions, but we should not abuse them. I do not suggest that the Members who have stood are doing so, but I sense something untoward about it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: There is something untoward about it. I was not suggesting any attack on your character. I was making it clear that a Member coming to the House, who has been making headlines because of savage attacks on her honour made by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party — [Interruption].

Members: Shame.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. It is now becoming increasingly clear that points of order about a duly grave matter are being used for political point-scoring, and that is not acceptable. I am now moving to the vote.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to resume his seat. I am not taking any further points of order, because it is becoming clear that they are being used for political point-scoring. The opportunity for debate was yesterday.
I have put the Question, but I sense slight confusion amongst Members — more cross voting than cross- community voting. I will therefore read the Question. The Question is to amend the motion to amend Standing Orders. Therefore, it is not a cross-community vote; it is a majority vote. The Question proposes to "delete all after ‘Speaker’ in line 6 and add: ‘and the change is endorsed by a majority of those already registered to this designation.’ ’’
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 70.
Ayes
Mr Agnew, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Noes
Dr Adamson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mrs E Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Carson, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Ford, Mr Foster, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Ms Hanna, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mr Neeson, Mrs Nelis, Mr Nesbitt, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Mr K Robinson, Ms Rodgers, Mr Savage, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided
Ayes
Nationalist
Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Ms Hanna, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Ms McWilliams, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Unionist
Dr Adamson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Dr Birnie, Mrs Carson, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Foster, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Ms Morrice, Mr Nesbitt, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.
Other
Mrs E Bell, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson.
Noes
Unionist
Mr Agnew, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Total Votes 99 Total Ayes 70 ( 70.7%) Nationalist Votes 38 Nationalist Ayes 38 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 57 Unionist Ayes 28 ( 49.1%)
Main Question accordingly agreed to (cross- community vote).
Resolved:
From 5 November 2001, until the commencement of a review under paragraph 36 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, Standing Order 3(8) has effect as if it read:
"A Member may change his/her designation of identity. Any such change takes effect immediately after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker. Any subsequent change shall take effect seven days after the day of such notification."

Re-Designation Letters

Mr Speaker: I have received an envelope, with a request that it be opened immediately upon the passing of the amendment to Standing Order 3(8) — [Interruption].
I am entirely at the service of the House. If Members do not listen closely, they may not find out what is in the envelope. There are three letters. The first reads:
"Mr Speaker,
In accordance with Standing Order 3(8) as amended today, I give notice that I am changing my designation from ‘Centre’ to ‘Unionist’.
In the terms of the Act that means from"Other" to "Unionist". The letter was signed by David Ford. The second letter reads:
"Mr Speaker,
In accordance with Standing Order 3(8) as amended today, I give notice that I am changing my designation from ‘Centre’ to ‘Unionist.’
Eileen Bell."
"Mr Speaker, In accordance with Standing Order 3(8) as amended today, I give notice that I am changing my designation from ‘Centre’ to ‘Unionist’.
Seán Neeson."
I have not received — [Interruption].
Order.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the information that you have just given to the Assembly, and in view of the mischievous and erroneous statement by Sammy Wilson yesterday — of course, it is not the first time that Sammy Wilson has been caught with his trousers down — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot hear either of the Members. Has the Member a point of order that he wishes to make?

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Assembly Member ought to give the whole House an apology for his statement yesterday. Come on, Sammy. Be a man.

Mr Speaker: Order. If it is the case that Mr Wilson wishes to give such an apology — [Interruption].

Mr Sammy Wilson: I assume, Mr Speaker, on the basis of your ruling yesterday, that you will allow me to make a personal statement in response to Mr McCarthy’s comments. You did the same for Mr Taylor yesterday.

Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to make a personal statement, I am happy to consider it.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker: However, he will know that the proper procedure for a personal statement is that he gives me in writing, in advance of the sitting, precisely what he is going to say — [Interruption].
Order. At the discretion of the Speaker, a decision will be made as to whether that personal statement may be proceeded with. Given that that is clearly the way in which the Member wishes to proceed with the issue, we will now move to the next matter.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am taking Mr Dodd’s point of order first, if I may.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of section 16(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, are you satisfied on the basis of the advice given to you that the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister beyond the stipulated period will certainly be valid, or is it your view that it may be valid? It is important to put on record that the consequences for the entire Government of Northern Ireland, and individual Departments and Ministers, if there is an election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister that turns out to be void, are serious. Potentially every decision would be unlawful and void. Have you therefore, Mr Speaker, come to the conclusion that it is valid to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister despite the provisions of section 16(8) of the said Act?

Mr Speaker: I want to respond to that point of order before doing anything else. I then wish to make remarks in respect of the letters that I was in the process of opening when other points of order were raised. I will then take up subsequent points of order.
The Member has raised a serious question. I have given consideration to it on the two counts that he gave. First, I have considered the question of the balance of probabilities as to whether any election would be regarded by the courts in the present circumstances as being a wholly proper and acceptable one or whether there would be substantial doubt about the question. That is the burden of the point of order from the Member because, as he points out, if it were to be the case that a court subsequently struck down the election, the question would be whether any decisions taken during that interim period would be valid decisions or whether they would then be a problem.
There is another aspect that the Member needs to keep in mind. If a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister were not elected, what would be the adverse consequences of that in terms of the Administration?

Mr Peter Robinson: Elections are not an adverse consequence.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am simply drawing attention, quite properly, to the issues that have to be considered. I have taken the most senior advice that I possibly could from a legal point of view. It was clear from the advice that I was given, and from my consideration of the matter, that the balance of probabilities was overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that it would be not only acceptable but proper as far as a court was concerned that this Assembly had the right to so elect and that that would be a valid election.
That does not rule out the possibility, as the Member knows, of a challenge being mounted, which the court would consider. However, I am clear, and I hope this is of some reassurance to the Member and to the House, that I have given proper consideration to those questions.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Following that point of order for clarification — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I will complete the item of business. In the light of the amendment to Standing Order 3(8) these three re-designations are valid and immediately effective.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to my original point of order, Mr Speaker, you said that I could, in writing, ask to make a personal statement to the House. However, on what basis did you make the judgement yesterday that Lord Kilclooney could make a personal comment to the House without putting it in writing? [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member may be in some confusion about what I said about personal statements. I did not say that he had to make an application in writing; I said the personal statement had to be submitted in writing.
The context yesterday was different. During a debate the Member requested an opportunity to reply, in the context of the debate, to questions that had been raised about him. The only issue with regard to that was that it came immediately after the winding-up speech on the amendment, rather than immediately prior to it. That was a procedural issue and not a question of a personal statement. We are not now in a debate, so matters are different. The Member is at liberty to put all the issues in writing, and I will consider them for the next sitting.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of your ruling to my Colleague from North Belfast, will you put in the Library of the House the advice that was given to you as Speaker of the House? If you will not do that, is the Business Committee of the House entitled to know the basis on which you made your ruling today?

Mr Speaker: The Member is a highly experienced parliamentarian, and he is also wholly familiar with the procedures of lawyers and the courts. He will know that it is generally regarded as inappropriate for such advice to be published. The counsel that I seek is the Speaker’s counsel and not the counsel to the Business Committee. Again, I do not think that that would be appropriate. I have made the ruling that I should, but I am not able to accede to the Member’s request. However, if there is a wish to challenge it, the Member knows the road to the court rather well, and undoubtedly he will take it.

Mr Robert McCartney: You are quite right, Mr Speaker, that the privilege that exists between client and legal adviser is one which can be claimed. However, it can be claimed only by the person who has received the advice. Do I understand that you are claiming personal privilege, as Speaker, for the advice that you received?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Member for confirming the propriety of my handling of the matter legally. The consequences of my not proceeding in this way would be that this question would be raised every time I told the House that I had taken legal advice, and that would be silly.

Mr Robert McCartney: Are you claiming it or not? You are claiming it.

Mr Speaker: The Member knows that very well.

Mr Robert McCartney: You are claiming it; that is fine; that is the answer.

Mr Speaker: Of course I am.
I will take only one further point of order from Rev Dr McCrea. Then we must proceed to the business in hand.

Rev William McCrea: Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that in the letters you received there was no communication to the House, or to you, from the hon Member for Lagan Valley, Seamus Close?

Mr Speaker: I am open to the House with regard to what I have received. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate about any Members.

Petition of Concern: Election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Motion proposed [5 November]:
That the Rt Hon David Trimble MP, MLA be First Minister and Mr Mark Durkan MLA be Deputy First Minister.
[Sir Reg Empey] [Mr Mallon]
Question put,
The Assembly divided
Ayes
Nationalist
Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Ms Hanna, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Ms McWilliams, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Unionist
Dr Adamson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mrs E Bell, Dr Birnie, Mrs Carson, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Ford, Mr Foster, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Ms Morrice, Mr Neeson, Mr Nesbitt, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.
Other
Mr McCarthy.
Noes
Unionist
Mr Agnew, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Total Votes 99 Total Ayes 70 ( 70.7%) Nationalist Votes 38 Nationalist Ayes 38 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 60 Unionist Ayes 31 ( 51.7%)
Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).
Resolved:
That the Rt Hon David Trimble MP, MLA be First Minister and Mr Mark Durkan MLA be Deputy First Minister.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To see Sinn Féin/IRA Members on their feet in jubilation at the election of Mr Trimble really is not the most gratifying sight for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order [Interruption].
Order. I now ask the Rt Hon David Trimble MP and Mr Mark Durkan, who have been chosen by — [Interruption] — the Assembly as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, to come forward to affirm the Pledge of Office [Interruption].
Order. I first ask the Rt Hon David Trimble, who has been duly elected as First Minister, to make the affirmation in the form prescribed.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Speaker, I affirm the Pledge of Office as set out in schedule 4 — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members do not remain silent during the affirmations, they may find that they will have to wait some considerable time before they will have a chance to speak formally again. This is not proper behaviour. Mr Trimble, please proceed.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Speaker, I affirm the Pledge of Office as set out in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act1998.

Mr Speaker: I now ask Mr Mark Durkan, who has been duly elected as Deputy First Minister, to make the affirmation in the form prescribed.

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Speaker, I affirm the Pledge of Office as set out in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mr Speaker: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been duly elected and appointed. That concludes the process for the appointment of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Adjourned at 11.45 am.